Regardless of your plane theory, the longitundinal center of gravity (which is a line) must stay be aligned to that plane. The clubshaft is at an angle to this line so as the LCOG is the axis on which the turn and roll takes plane, the shaft will make a conical shape and will be aligned with the inclined plane only at 2 points around 360 degrees of rotation.
Now to the Hank Haney parallel plane theory. To those not acquanted with the golfing machine would think it contradictory to the TGM however they are mistaken. Homer Kelley clearly states in 7-7 - I don't have my book with me so I will have to paraphrase "other controlled procedures may be more difficult but not be deemed incorrect such as positioning the club to the plane angle intended for release". This is exactly the same as the parallel plane theory. However going into this in detail is another post however I concur with Homer Kelley on this that it is unnessesarily difficult.
I have no problem appreciating the fact that camera angle variations can distort our perception of whether the clubshaft is on plane - using HK's definition (peripheral end of the club pointing at the baseline of the inclined plane).
However, I can tell from looking at Sergio Garcia's clubshaft-hand movements in images 1,2, 3 that he is definitely not "on plane" per HK's definition (even when accepting the potential presence of camera angle perceptual problems), and the reason relates to the fact that Sergio has the individual idiosyncrasy of dropping his hands groundwards a large amount per unit time, with only a small degree of left arm rotation per unit time, during that time period of his downswing. I also cannot label Sergio's downswing action imperfect if he successfully gets his clubshaft-on-plane at the critical time point - at impact.
I also cannot label Sergio's downswing action imperfect if he successfully gets his clubshaft-on-plane at the critical time point - at impact.
You've just found the definition of "on plane". To expand a bit, it's when the right forearm and clubshaft are tracing the plane line. Prior to that, just about anything goes.
Mathew put up a nice 3D animation at one point. Pretty sure its still in the gallery.
__________________
Bagger
1-H "Because of questions of all kinds, reams of additional detail must be made available - but separately, and probably endlessly." Homer Kelly
Bagger - is it correct to infer that the right forearm need only trace the plane line in the later downswing to reach a perfect impact alignment, and that the right forearm's movement in the early downswing can be very variable in different individual golfers?
Bottom line is that you have to get to the correct release plane.
Through impact the club will need to move on the release plane because of the design of the club (and if anyone is unsure of why this is let me know...)- however technically pp3 will actually be moving fractionally offplane as the club is released. As the club is rotated around the LCOG by moving the left hand towards vertical, the clubshaft will rotate in a conical fashion and because pp3 is on the line of the shaft not the LCOG it must move offplane. The right forearm and arm of course needs to maintain alignments inorder to move the pressure point correctly and in that sence guides pp3.
when I came across the Nike adv swing, it really looks like what Homer told us regarding plane shift, right forearm and #3 pressure point “on plane”; Elbow plane and Turned shoulder plane; double shift; parallel; pointing at…etc. I am not kind of lines drawing expert…Jeff might draw something different on the same or other video to support his opinion and said I am wrong....same as someone might spend hrs to find out some physic term mistakes, picky from egg in the book, but why don’t make good use of the information and digest to help themselves or others with the same amount of effort? I think the “marginal return” must be higher in the later case. One day, Dr. ABC or CDE might show us with a complete study of a golf stroke based on 21st century technology facts and universal law supports, but before that which book showed you the most?
__________________
If you cannot take the shoulder down the clubshaft plane, you must take along some other path and add compensations - now, instead of one motion to remember, you wind up with at least two!
I sympathaize with your belief that HK's on-plane ideas are good enough to "hang one's hat on" (to use Mike's phrase). That's where my hat is personally hanging at the present time. When I introduced this thread, I was simply comparing HK's plane theory to another plane theory (Hank Haney's). I never stated that I had sympathy for Haney's plane theory, or any other non-HK plane theory. I simply thought that this forum was a suitable forum for serious intellectual discussions regarding golf swing theory (TGM swing theory in relatiionship to other swing theories). However, there is a subgroup of forum members who don't like to see anyone question HK's swing theories. They remind me of the radical Islamicists, who want to issue a fatwa on anyone who questions, or lampoons, their beliefs (eg. Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist). However, this is supposed to be an intellectually-sympathetic forum for the free expression of serious, but different, opinions regarding golf swing theory. Or isn't it? Are you arguing that only posts that idolise HK, and all his swing theories, should be allowed? I agree with you that HK's book may "offer the most", but it is not the Koran.
Jeff, I think that you make some fair points - but the independence of any forum is always at the discretion of the host. LBG hosts the forum and has a VERY even hand when it comes to governing - as Lynn often says it is a Collegiate atmosphere, questions, debate, answers. But the bottom line is that Lynn teaches HK's work. Therefore the forum works to help people understand HK's words and ideas...spreading the message that Homer would have done had he been given the opportunity.
Lynn and other forum members have a great knowledge of the literature and players that helped HK forge his own ideas and my own library has swelled to incorporate all the old books that HK had access to...so debate goes on about how these books influenced HK etc.
Showing pics of people who have had no exposure to TGM and saying that they are great strikers with their planes does not help....they achieve results in spite of the above hip high patterns rather than because of their above hip high patterns.,,,in fact because their patterns get close to HK's theories below hip high...which makes most of us think that HK was onto something. Politically the problem might arise when those people are associated with people who earn money in the same arena as LBG... I know that this has not happened yet...but the boundary is easily crossed...
There is alot more to TGM than you get just by reading the book and forum for 6 months...eggs keep on hatching many months and even years later...
Seriously, have you built a plane board?...I did...in my living room....full size...that is a great place to start and then people will not take any offence if they know that you have tried it... "less Gedanken...more G-doing"
I sympathaize with your belief that HK's on-plane ideas are good enough to "hang one's hat on" (to use Mike's phrase). That's where my hat is personally hanging at the present time. When I introduced this thread, I was simply comparing HK's plane theory to another plane theory (Hank Haney's). I never stated that I had sympathy for Haney's plane theory, or any other non-HK plane theory. I simply thought that this forum was a suitable forum for serious intellectual discussions regarding golf swing theory (TGM swing theory in relatiionship to other swing theories). However, there is a subgroup of forum members who don't like to see anyone question HK's swing theories. They remind me of the radical Islamicists, who want to issue a fatwa on anyone who questions, or lampoons, their beliefs (eg. Salmon Rushdie or a Danish cartoonist). However, this is supposed to be an intellectually-sympathetic forum for the free expression of serious, but different, opinions regarding golf swing theory. Or isn't it? Are you arguing that only posts that idolise HK, and all his swing theories, should be allowed? I agree with you that HK's book may "offer the most", but it is not the Koran.
Jeff.
There is usually 2 topics best left out of forums - religion and politics. You managed to include both with the same example. It is true that comparing people to others is a suitable effect when you wish to.
Recently there was a thread where some professional was shooting a video, a bird was squawking and he shot a couple of golf balls to scare it away and hit/killed a bird and someone on here was calling for him to get jail time for the pampered athlete...etc. Now I hate animal rights protest movements and I basically used an analogy of Hitler. The effect was to be overly extreme because I personally can't abide anyone with that kind of anti-humanist mentality, and if I annoyed him in the process that was fine.
However I am curious as to the nature of your comment. As an arguement it is rational enough but seems contradictory to the deliberate effect of annoying those to whom it is aimed at if you were serious about your claims. Just don't understand the purpose of the post as the reference nullifies the arguement and the arguement nullifies the effect to those that is aimed at.
Hybrid Mode
